LETTER: IN RESPONSE to "Opinion: Comparing lost pets to babies is too far" (QT Monday, June 3).
Is comparing the loss of a beloved family pet to a child purely shaming the emotions some people may feel? The connections we form and the love that we feel as individuals will always vary, it comes in many different forms and sizes. To pose an opinion such as "Comparing lost pets to babies is too far," are you purely judging the emotions some people may feel? Or is your writer in fact the one undermining the experience of many grieving families? Of course, opinion is opinion.
My opinion may not be the same as another person's opinion. Nevertheless, what right do I have to tell them that their opinion is "too far" or that their grief is not comparable because they have not experienced a different kind of loss?
In the same respect, would then the grief someone felt for the loss of their genetic child always be stronger than the grief felt for their adopted child? This article struck me, not because I believe that either grief is comparable but because not one person should be made to feel ashamed, or to have their guilt lessened.
Love is love and grief is grief, no matter the amount of legs, the gender or genetics.
"Grief is not a disorder, a disease or a sign of weakness. It is an emotional, physical and spiritual necessity, the price you pay for love. The only cure for grief is to grieve," (Earl Grollman). Here's what I know about grief, that we do not talk enough about grief.
Instead of making comparisons, shouldn't we be saying that it is okay to grieve no matter the loss?
The opinion piece asked whether people comparing the loss of a pet to the death of a child undermined parents' experiences and did not mention or refer in any way to adoption. In no way did it refer to grief being a disease. The opinion piece is available in full at www.qt.com.au.